THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 235687. October 6, 2021.]
MANUEL VILLANUEVA y BORROMEO, petitioner, vs.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedOctober 6, 2021, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 235687 (MANUEL VILLANUEVA y BORROMEO, petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.). — The legal safeguards established in Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 demand strict compliance. Absent justifiable grounds to deviate from the rules on chain of custody and specific safety measures taken to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items, doubt arises on the corpus delicti and, consequently, on the guilt of the accused. Courts cannot merely rely on police officers' substantial compliance and the presumption of regularity in the performance of official acts to support a conviction for illegal possession of dangerous drugs.
This Court resolves the Petition for Review on Certiorari1 assailing the Court of Appeals Decision 2 and Resolution, 3 which affirmed the conviction 4 of Manuel Villanueva y Borromeo (Villanueva) for violation of Section 11 5 of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
The Information reads:
That on about the 6th day of January 2006, in the City of Las Piñas, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without being authorized by law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly have in his possession, control and custody one (1) green CD case containing two (2) heat-sealed transparent plastic bags each containing one point seven (1.7) grams and seventeen point fifty (17.50) grams of Marijuana and two (2) knot-tied transparent plastic bags and each containing thirty-four point zero five (34.05) grams and twenty-two point thirty (22.30) grams of Marijuana, a dangerous drug in violation of the above-cited law.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 6
Upon arraignment, Villanueva pleaded not guilty to the charge. During pretrial, the prosecution and the defense stipulated on the jurisdiction of the court over the offense charged and on the identity of Villanueva. Trial on the merits then ensued. 7 TCAScE
The prosecution presented as its witnesses the arresting officers, PO2 Joachim Panopio (PO2 Panopio), PO2 Rodel Ordinaryo (PO2 Ordinaryo), PO2 Michael Holanda (PO2 Holanda), and Forensic Chemist P/Insp. May Andrea Bonifacio (P/Insp. Bonifacio). 8
According to the prosecution, on January 6, 2006, at around 2:00 p.m., PO2 Panopio, PO2 Ordinaryo, and PO2 Holanda of the Southern Police District, Las Piñas City Police Station-Station Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operation Task Force (SAID-SOTF), were dispatched by their superior officer, PSI Liza M. Sevillo, to conduct surveillance at Everlasting Homes, Medina Compound, Talon 4, Las Piñas City. This was after PO2 Panopio received a call from an informant about the rampant selling of illegal drugs in the area involving a certain "Manny" who they later identified as Villanueva. The police officers proceeded to the area around 6:00 p.m. 9
During the surveillance operation, the confidential informant approached PO2 Panopio and pointed to a male person standing along the alley, wearing short pants and a black sando, who he identified as Villanueva. As they approached, the police officers saw Villanueva open his CD bag and examine its contents. PO2 Panopio then saw Villanueva pick up one transparent plastic sachet containing suspected marijuana. This prompted the police officers to rush towards Villanueva and introduce themselves as police officers from SAID-SOTF. PO2 Panopio seized the transparent plastic sachet from Villanueva. Upon further inspection of the CD bag, PO2 Panopio discovered three bigger transparent plastic sachets containing suspected dried marijuana leaves. PO2 Panopio seized a total of four plastic sachets from Villanueva. 10
They then brought Villanueva to the SAID-SOTF office. There, PO2 Panopio turned over the seized items to the duty investigator, PO3 Rufino Dalagdagan, who marked the items with "MVB1-06JAN2006," "MVB2-06JAN2006," "MVB3-06JAN2006," and "MVB4-06JAN2006." PO3 Dalagdagan marked the CD bag with "MVB5-06JAN2006." The marking was done in the presence of Villanueva, as well as PO2 Panopio, PO2 Sabbun and PO2 Holanda. However, no representatives from the Department of Justice and the media, as well as a locally elected official were present. Thereafter, the seized items were delivered to the Philippine National Police, Southern Police District Crime Laboratory for examination. 11
PSI May Andrea Bonifacio conducted a chemical analysis on the seized items and prepared Physical Science Report No. D-015-06S, stating that the qualitative examination on the seized items yielded a positive result for the presence of marijuana. 12
The defense presented Villanueva as its lone witness. He denied the accusations against him. 13
According to him, at around 6:00 p.m. on January 6, 2006, he was fixing his bicycle outside the house which he shared with his brother, when five men suddenly arrived and went inside the house and headed upstairs. When the men went back out, they asked him who occupied the house. When Villanueva answered that it was his brother's, he was invited by the men to go with them to their office. At the police station, Villanueva learned from PO3 Dalagdagan that he will be detained as "pamalit ulo" to his brother, who was allegedly engaged in illegal activities. Nobody informed him that he had been arrested for possession of marijuana. He only learned that he was being charged with such offense at the SAID-SOTF office. 14
In its July 27, 2016 Decision, 15 the Regional Trial of Las Piñas City, Branch 200, found Villanueva guilty of illegal possession of marijuana. The trial court gave more credence to the evidence of the prosecution. It further ruled that the failure of the police officers to strictly comply with the provisions of Section 21 (1) of Republic Act No. 9165 does not necessarily render an accused's arrest illegal or the items seized or confiscated from him inadmissible. 16 The dispositive portion of the Decision reads: cTDaEH
WHEREFORE, premises considered, this court finds the accused MANUEL VILLANUEVA y BORROMEO GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT of possession of four (4) transparent plastic sachets of marijuana leaves in violation of Sec. 11, Article II, RA 9165, he is hereby SENTENCED to suffer the imprisonment of TWELVE (12) YEARS AND ONE (1) DAY, AS THE MINIMUM TERM, TO FOURTEEN (14) YEARS AND EIGHT (8) MONTHS, AS THE MAXIMUM TERM, and to pay the FINE of Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (P300,000.00).
Let the bond posted by the accused be CANCELLED.
The confiscated four (4) sachets of marijuana leaves subject of this case (Exhibits E-1 to E-4) are hereby declared forfeited in favor of the government and shall be disposed of in accordance with the law.
SO ORDERED. 17
On appeal before the Court of Appeals, Villanueva argued that the illegality of the warrantless arrest and of the incidental search rendered the evidence inadmissible, 18 and that non-compliance by the police officers with the procedural safeguards prescribed by Republic Act No. 9165 cast doubt on the chain of custody, 19 and ultimately, on his guilt. 20
In its assailed June 29, 2017 Decision, 21 the Court of Appeals denied the appeal and affirmed Villanueva's conviction. 22 It held that Villanueva's failure to object to the irregularity of his arrest prior to his arraignment, and his subsequent plea and participation in the trial, constituted a waiver of any alleged defect in his arrest. 23 Moreover, the Court of Appeals ruled that Villanueva was arrested during a surveillance and casing operation, which is one of the circumstances where warrantless arrest is justified under Rule 113, Section 5 (a) and (b) of the Rules of Court. 24
Affirming Villanueva's conviction, the Court of Appeals held that all the elements of the crime of illegal possession were sufficiently proven. It found the integrity off the sachets of marijuana seized from Villanueva to have been preserved and the chain of custody of the seized items to have been continuous and unbroken. Furthermore, as against Villanueva's bare denial, it found more credible the positive testimonies of the arresting officers who were not shown to have been impelled by ill motive to falsely testify against the accused. 25 The dispositive portion of the Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, we DENY the appeal. The decision appealed from is AFFIRMED.
IT IS SO ORDERED. 26
The Court of Appeals also denied Villanueva's subsequent Motion for Reconsideration. 27
Hence, Villanueva filed this Petition for Review on Certiorari. 28
Petitioner questions the Court of Appeals' conclusion that he was arrested in flagrante delicto. He submits that the prosecution's version of the events was incredible because it was impossible for the police officers to see, from a distance of about 5, 7, and 8 meters, what he was allegedly holding as it was dark at that time. Thus, it could not be said that the police officers possessed sufficient belief that he was committing a crime to justify a warrantless arrest. Consequently, the seized items are inadmissible in evidence, having been obtained during an illegal warrantless arrest. 29
Petitioner further contends that the Court of Appeals gravely erred in affirming his conviction despite the failure of the prosecution to establish the integrity of the corpus delicti. Petitioner raises the police officers' non-compliance with the safeguard measures required by Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, as amended by Republic Act No. 10640, particularly with respect to the: (1) immediate marking of the items allegedly seized by the apprehending officers; (2) conduct of inventory of the items; and (3) taking of photographs of the items.
Petitioner adds that the procedure was further tainted with suspicion when the marking was made neither at the place of arrest, nor at the nearest police station, but at the SAID office, and only about an hour later, which does not obviate the possibility of tampering with the allegedly seized items, to the prejudice of petitioner. Moreover, it was the investigating officer who marked the items, not the apprehending officers. The police officers did not even tender any explanation for their noncompliance with the law. Citing People v. Dela Cruz30 and People v. Ancheta, 31 petitioner submits that upon the failure to observe the safeguard measures required by law, his acquittal should necessarily follow as there is no definite proof that the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti have been preserved. 32 cSaATC
Finally, petitioner submits that the Court of Appeals gravely erred in disregarding his defense of denial. Petitioner contends that the procedural lapses and grave irregularities of the police officers strengthen his defense that there were really no items seized from his possession and that the same were only planted by the police officers. 33
In its Comment, 34 the People, through the Office of the Solicitor General, submits that Petitioner may not raise questions of fact in a petition for review on certiorari. 35 It contends that the warrantless arrest and the incidental search could not be questioned for the first time on appeal and that they were nevertheless valid. 36 Ultimately, it asserts that petitioner's guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt because the corpus delicti was established despite the alleged absence of strict compliance with Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165. 37
The issue for this Court's resolution is whether or not petitioner Manuel Villanueva y Borromeo is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal possession of dangerous drugs.
This Court resolves to grant the petition and acquit petitioner.
For the successful prosecution of the offense of illegal possession of regulated or prohibited drugs, the following elements must be established: (1) the accused is in possession of an item or object, which is identified to be a prohibited or regulated drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the drug. 38 The corpus delicti is the illicit drug confiscated from the accused. 39 Thus, the identity and integrity of the seized drugs must be preserved to ensure it is the very same items offered in court. 40 In People v. Sagana, 41 this Court explained:
"[I]t is of paramount importance that the existence of the drug, the corpus delicti of the crime, be established beyond doubt." Its identity and integrity must be proven to have been safeguarded. Aside from proving the elements of the charges, "the fact that the substance illegally possessed and sold [was] the same substance offered in court as exhibit must likewise be established with the same degree of certitude as that needed to sustain a guilty verdict." The chain of custody carries out this purpose "as it ensures that unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed." 42 (Citations omitted)
The identity and integrity of the corpus delicti is safeguarded through strict compliance with the chain of custody requirements dictated by the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act. 43 Section 21 44 instructs law enforcers regarding the procedure that must be observed from the moment of seizure of drugs and drug paraphernalia, to their examination, until their presentation before the court:
SECTION 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. — The PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner:
(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof[.] 45 cHDAIS
The Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 9165 provides a saving clause from strict compliance with the law:
SECTION 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. — The PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner:
(a) The apprehending officer/team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof: Provided, that the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place where the search warrant is served; or at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures; Provided, further, that non-compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items[.] 46 (Emphasis supplied)
The fungible nature of dangerous drugs necessitates faithful compliance with the foregoing 47 to ensure the integrity of seized drugs in four aspects: 48
[F]irst, the nature of the substances or items seized; second, the quantity (e.g., weight) of the substances or items seized; third, the relation of the substances or items seized to the incident allegedly causing their seizure; and fourth, the relation of the substances or items seized to the person/s alleged to have been in possession of or peddling them. . . . 49
To eliminate the possibility of tampering with and planting of evidence, the prosecution must establish four links in the chain of custody over seized drugs: 50
[F]irst, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; third, the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized from the forensic chemist to the court. 51
In this case, the law enforcers miserably failed to meet the exacting standards of Section 21 (1) of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act.
First, the marking of the allegedly seized items was not performed immediately at the place of arrest and seizure. People v. Sultan52 explained why marking, as well as inventory and taking of photographs, must be immediately done at the place of arrest and seizure:
. . . Section 21 mandates the conduct of inventory and taking of photographs "immediately after seizure and confiscation," which means that these must be done at the place of the arrest. Que explained:
What is critical in drug cases is not the bare conduct of inventory, marking, and photographing. Instead, it is the certainty that the items allegedly taken from the accused retain their integrity, even as they make their way from the accused to an officer effecting the seizure, to an investigating officer, to a forensic chemist, and ultimately, to courts where they are introduced as evidence[.]
Section 21 (1)'s requirements are designed to make the first and second links foolproof. Conducting the inventory and photographing immediately after seizure, exactly where the seizure was done, or at a location as practicably close to it, minimizes, if not eliminates, room for adulteration or the planting of evidence[.] 53 (Citation omitted) ISHCcT
Here, however, the allegedly seized drugs were marked at the SAID-SOTF office.
Second, the marking of the allegedly seized items was not done in the presence of all the required witnesses, namely: the accused or person from whom such items were confiscated or their representative or counsel; a representative from the media and the Department of Justice; and any elected public official.
Among the required witnesses, only petitioner was present during the marking. 54 The presence of third-party witnesses would have ensured that whatever items are subsequently inventoried, photographed, examined, and presented in court are the same as that initially obtained from the accused. 55
Third, the apprehending officers did not perform the marking themselves. Instead, the investigating officer, PO3 Dalagdagan, did. 56 This Court has ruled in Aparente v. People57 that the failure of the apprehending team to mark the seized drugs immediately after seizure and confiscation coupled with the fact only the investigating officer at the police station marked the same and not the arresting officers cast a shadow of doubt on the integrity of the operation.
Fourth, no inventory and taking of photographs were conducted. In People v. Ismael, 58 this Court ruled that such an omission constitutes a break in the chain of custody which "tainted the integrity of the seized drugs presented in court [such that] the very identity of the seized drugs became highly questionable." 59
The foregoing lapses cast doubt on the nature and quantity of allegedly seized items, the relation of the allegedly seized items to the surveillance operation, and the relation of the allegedly seized items to petitioner. The lapses also break the links between seizure and marking, the turnover of the allegedly seized items by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer, the turnover of the allegedly seized items by the investigating officer to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination, and the turnover and submission of the allegedly seized items from the forensic chemist to the court.
While the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act recognizes that strict compliance with its provisions may not always be possible and therefore allows exceptions, it must be shown that noncompliance was justifiable and that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item were preserved. The prosecution ought to explain why the requirements were not strictly complied with. It must also prove during trial the justifiable grounds for noncompliance. 60 Further, it must be shown that the law enforcers took specific safety measures to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items in view of the deviations made from. the chain of custody requirements. 61
Here, the prosecution failed to allege, much less prove, any justification for the glaring lapses in the procedure taken to protect the chain of custody. The prosecution did not offer any explanation for the failure of the apprehending officers to immediately perform marking, the absence of the required witnesses, and the complete omission of inventory and photographs.
Ultimately, the prosecution was unable to provide any reason for the lapses in the procedure to establish an unbroken chain of custody.
The prosecution had the burden of pleading specific safety measures taken in view of noncompliance with Section 21. 62 No specific safety measures were alleged and proven here. This amplifies the gaps in the chain of custody, creating serious doubt as to the integrity of the corpus delicti.
As stated in People v. Musa, 63 "the essence of the chain of custody rule is to ensure that the dangerous drug presented in court as evidence against the accused is the same dangerous drug recovered from his or her possession." 64 The danger of tampering with or planting evidence is worse when the quantity of the allegedly seized drugs is minuscule. 65 Thus, the need for strict compliance is magnified.
In this case, the allegedly seized sachets only contained 75.55 grams of marijuana in total. This relatively minute quantity should have heightened the importance of a more stringent conformity with Section 21. 66 In People v. Holgado: 67
While the min[u]scule amount of narcotics seized is by itself not a ground for acquittal, this circumstance underscores the need for more exacting compliance with Section 21. In Mallillin v. People, this court said that "the likelihood of tampering, loss or mistake with respect to an exhibit is greatest when the exhibit is small and is one that has physical characteristics fungible in nature and similar in form to substances familiar to people in their daily lives." CAacTH
xxx xxx xxx
Trial courts should meticulously consider the factual intricacies of cases involving violations of Republic Act No. 9165. All details that factor into an ostensibly uncomplicated and barefaced narrative must be scrupulously considered. Courts must employ heightened scrutiny, consistent with the requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt, in evaluating cases involving min[u]scule amounts of drugs. These can be readily planted and tampered . . . 68 (Citations omitted)
This Court has consistently held that unjustified lapses or noncompliance with Section 21 are tantamount to a substantial gap in the chain of custody. 69 Law enforcers' failure to comply with chain of custody requirements equates to the prosecution's failure to establish the corpus delicti. This results in the failure to prove that the charged crime was actually committed. 70
In finding petitioner guilty, the Regional Trial Court allowed the prosecution to rely on substantial compliance and the presumption of regularity accorded to State agents. 71 In affirming petitioner's conviction, the Court of Appeals gave credence to the testimonies of the apprehending officers and the forensic chemist and ruled that the integrity of the allegedly seized items was nevertheless preserved and that the chain of custody was continuous and unbroken. 72 This Court has cautioned the lower courts to be cautious instead of easily resorting to the presumption of regularity enjoyed by police officers in the performance of their official acts. Indeed, it is fundamentally unsound for the courts to rely on this presumption of regularity when there are procedural lapses because these are undeniable evidence of irregularities in the performance of official acts. 73
On a final note, we reiterate our ruling in People v. Holgado74 that until the entities who sustain nefarious drug organizations are brought to justice, courts will continue to encounter the same stories with different names:
It is lamentable that while our dockets are clogged with prosecutions under Republic Act No. 9165 involving small-time drug users and retailers, we are seriously short of prosecutions involving the proverbial "big fish." We are swamped with cases involving small fry who have been arrested for min[u]scule amounts. While they are certainly a bane to our society, small retailers are but low-lying fruits in an exceedingly vast network of drug cartels. Both law enforcers and prosecutors should realize that the more effective and efficient strategy is to focus resources more on the source and true leadership of these nefarious organizations. Otherwise, all these executive and judicial resources expended to attempt to convict an accused for 0.05 gram of shabu under doubtful custodial arrangements will hardly make a dent in the overall picture. It might in fact be distracting our law enforcers from their more challenging task: to uproot the causes of this drug menace. We stand ready to assess cases involving greater amounts of drugs and the leadership of these cartels. 75
WHEREFORE, the Court of Appeals' June 29, 2017 Decision in CA-G.R. CR No. 39092, which affirmed the July 27, 2016 Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Las Piñas City, Branch 200, is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Petitioner Manuel Villanueva y Borromeo is ACQUITTED for the prosecution's failure to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. He is ordered immediately RELEASED from detention, unless he is confined for any other lawful cause.
Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished to the Director General of the Bureau of Corrections for immediate implementation. The Director General is directed to report to this Court the action he/she has taken within five (5) days from receipt of this Resolution. For their information, copies shall also be furnished to the Police General of the Philippine National Police and the Director General of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency.
The Regional Trial Court is directed to tam over the seized marijuana to the Dangerous Drugs Board for destruction in accordance with law. CTIEac
Let entry of final judgment be issued immediately.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 11-203.
2. Id. at 46-62. The Decision dated June 29, 2017 in CA-G.R. CR No. 39092 was penned by Associate Justice Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr. and concurred in by Associate Justices Danton Q. Bueser and Marie Christine Azcarraga-Jacob of the Thirteenth Division, Court of Appeals, Manila.
3. Id. at 63-64. The Resolution dated October 27, 2017 was penned by Associate Justice Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr. and concurred in by Associate Justices Danton Q. Bueser and Marie Christine Azcarraga-Jacob of the Former Thirteenth Division, Court of Appeals, Manila.
4. Id. at 86-98. The Decision dated July 27, 2016 in Crim. Case No. 06-0033 was penned by Judge Leopoldo E. Baraquia of the Regional Trial Court of Las Piñas City, Branch 200.
5. SECTION 11. Possession of Dangerous Drugs. — The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall possess any dangerous drug in the following quantities, regardless of the degree of purity thereof:
(1) 10 grains or more of opium;
(2) 10 grams or more of morphine;
(3) 10 grams or more of heroin;
(4) 10 grams or more of cocaine or cocaine hydrochloride;
(5) 50 grams or more of methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu";
(6) 10 grams or more of marijuana resin or marijuana resin oil;
(7) 500 grams or more of marijuana; and
(8) 10 grams or more of other dangerous drugs such as, but not limited to, methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) or "ecstasy," paramethoxyamphetamine (PMA), trimethoxyamphetamine (TMA), lysergic acid diethylamine (LSD), gamma hydroxybutyrate (GHB), and those similarly designed or newly introduced drugs and their derivatives, without having any therapeutic value or if the quantity possessed is far beyond therapeutic requirements, as determined and promulgated by the Board in accordance to Section 93, Article XI of this Act.
Otherwise, if the quantity involved is less than the foregoing quantities, the penalties shall be graduated as follows:
(1) Life imprisonment and a fine ranging from Four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00) to Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00), if the quantity of methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu" is ten (10) grams or more but less than fifty (50) grams;
(2) Imprisonment of twenty (20) years and one (1) day to life imprisonment and a fine ranging from Four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00) to Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00), if the quantities of dangerous drugs are five (5) grams or more but less than ten (10) grams of opium, morphine, heroin, cocaine or cocaine hydrochloride, marijuana resin or marijuana resin oil, methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu," or other dangerous drugs such as, but not limited to, MDMA or "ecstasy," PMA, TMA, LSD, GHB, and those similarly designed or newly introduced drugs and their derivatives, without having any therapeutic value or if the quantity possessed is far beyond therapeutic requirements; or three hundred (300) grams or more but less than five hundred (500) grams of marijuana; and
(3) Imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years and a fine ranging from Three hundred thousand pesos (P300,000.00) to Four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00), if the quantities of dangerous drugs are less than five (5) grams of opium, morphine, heroin, cocaine or cocaine hydrochloride, marijuana resin or marijuana resin oil, methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu," or other dangerous drugs such as, but not limited to, MDMA or "ecstasy," PMA, TMA, LSD, GHB, and those similarly designed or newly introduced drugs and their derivatives, without having any therapeutic value or if the quantity possessed is far beyond therapeutic requirements; or less than three hundred (300) grams of marijuana.
6. Rollo, p. 86.
7. Id.
8. Id. at 87.
9. Id. at 48.
10. Id. at 48-49.
11. Id. at 49.
12. Id. at 59.
13. Id. at 50.
14. Id.
15. Id. at 86-98.
16. Id. at 93-97.
17. Id. at 97-98.
18. Id. at 72-74.
19. Id. at 74-79.
20. Id. at 79-83.
21. Id. at 45-62.
22. Id. at 62.
23. Id. at 52-54.
24. Id. at 54-55.
25. Id. at 55-60.
26. Id. at 62.
27. Id. at 63-64.
28. Id. at 11-203.
29. Id. at 22-23.
30. 744 Phil. 816 (2014) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].
31. 687 Phil. 569 (2012) [Per J. Sereno, Second Division].
32. Rollo, pp. 23-37.
33. Id. at 37-38.
34. Id. at 205-235.
35. Id. at 211-212.
36. Id. at 212-217.
37. Id. at 217-231.
38. Asiatico v. People, 673 Phil. 74 (2011) [Per J. Velasco, Jr., Third Division].
39. People v. Sultan, G.R. No. 225210, August 7, 2019, <https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/65518> [Per J. Leonen, Third Division] citing People v. Sagana, 815 Phil. 356 (2017) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].
40. People v. Saunar, 816 Phil. 482 (2017) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].
41. 815 Phil. 356 (2017) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].
42. Id. at 367-368.
43. People v. Sumilip, G.R. No. 223712, September 11, 2019, <https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/65887> [Per J. Leonen, Special First Division].
44. Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 has since been amended by Republic Act No. 10640 in 2014. However, the incidents concerning this case transpired in 2010. As such, the law as originally formulated should govern.
45. Republic Act No. 9165 (2002), sec. 21.1.
46. Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 9165, sec. 21 (a).
47. People v. Castillo, G.R. No. 238339, August 7, 2019, <https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/65610> [Per J. Leonen, Third Division], citing Mallillin v. People, 576 Phil. 576 (2008) [Per J. Tinga, Second Division].
48. Id.
49. People v. Holgado, 741 Phil. 78, 93 (2014) [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].
50. People v. Castillo, G.R. No. 238339, August 7, 2019, <https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/65610> [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].
51. People v. Nandi, 639 Phil. 134, 144-145 (2010) [Per J. Mendoza, Second Division] citing People v. Kamad, 624 Phil. 289 (2010) [Per J. Brion, First Division].
52. G.R No. 225210, August 7, 2019, <https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/65518> [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].
53. Id.
54. Rollo, p. 59.
55. People v. Castillo, G.R. No. 238339, August 7, 2019, <https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelfshowdocs/1/65610> [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].
56. Rollo, p. 58.
57. 818 Phil. 935 (2017) [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].
58. 806 Phil. 21 (2017) [Per J. Del Castillo, First Division].
59. Id. at 37.
60. Id.
61. People v. Castillo, G.R. No. 238339, August 7, 2019, <https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/65610> [Per J. Leonen, Third Division] citing People v. Sanchez, 590 Phil. 214, 234 (2008) [Per J. Brion, Second Division].
62. People v. Castillo, G.R. No. 238339, August 7, 2019, <https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/65610> [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].
63. 698 Phil. 204 (2012) [Per J. Velasco, Jr.]
64. Id. at 219 citing People v. Denoman, 612 Phil. 1165 (2009) [Per J. Brion, Second Division].
65. People v. Acub, G.R. No. 220456, June 10, 2019, <https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/65228> [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].
66. People v. Sagana, 815 Phil. 356 (2017) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].
67. 741 Phil. 78 (2014) [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].
68. Id. at 99-100.
69. Id.
70. People v. Saragena, 817 Phil. 117 (2017) [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].
71. Rollo, pp. 96-97.
72. Id. at 58.
73. People v. Acub, G.R. No. 220456, June 10, 2019, <https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelfshowdocs/1/65228> [Per. J. Leonen, Third Division].
74. People v. Holgado, 741 Phil. 78 (2014) [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].
75. Id. at 100.